social justice in colleges explained

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: ketsuko


Exactly!
Social justice is a punishment for people that are perceived privileged.

Social justice is a punishment for someone saying something stupid and insensitive. It is the consequence one must accept for being insensitive in this day and age. Don't like it? Too bad. That's how things are. That is unless you want to infringe on people's Freedom of Speech.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
BH, I've been aware of the term "social justice" for a while from following the PC movement. If you go to other forums, terms like social justice warrior (or SJW) are actually pretty common.

Oh, I'm sure it is common. ATS is the extent of my social media participation. Like I said, I've heard it many times and read it here, but I wasn't aware of the negative meaning, other than it being used as an obvious insult.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yea it's dumb, but then against so is most "anti-" rhetoric.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Your probably right.
Blacks and woman couldn't possibly be smart enough to get into college without the help of evil white men. Let's lower the standards!
But I would think they would be tired of hearing that by now.

Getting into college is about more than having the intelligence to learn:
You need to go to grade schools that teach you the things you need to know
You need to have teachers that can actually cover material rather than babysit
You need an ability to pay for the classes you take
You need a home life that's conducive to studying
You need parents that can teach you the answers as a kid
You need a family that doesn't expect you to go work at 15 and supplement the family income, and more.

It's about much much more than raw intelligence. There are some very intelligent people out there who never get the chance to go to college because the other situations in their life make such a thing very difficult to do, and those are the types of things that try to get recognized and addressed.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

Nope those are SJW rules again.

Equality in opportunity requires equality in starting circumstances. Those circumstances are currently very unequal in society.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'd argue that there is nothing that could be done to help that guy. There are and have always been consequences for your actions. Just because the consequences aren't legal in nature doesn't mean that you shouldn't be aware of them.

I'm only concerned about legal consequences for your words. As long as the government isn't arresting or fining people for what they say, I could care less what happens to someone for opening their mouth and saying something stupid or intolerant. It is what it is. That's how things work.

The only solution to stop something like that from happening is to infringe on a SJW's right to free speech so as to protect someone else's right to say something intolerant, and that is not something I agree with. In FACT, that would be a very example of the ends justifying the means to people. What you suggested there isn't the ends justifying the means. It is just public backlash for saying something stupid.

Expecting people and the government to abide by the rule of law is not social justice. The man lost his livelihood for no reason besides people demanding his dismissal because they didn't like what he said, no matter the burden of proof. That is a social injustice. I'm sure if Sir Hunt was of a different race and class, we'd be singing a different tune.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Three men have now lost their jobs. The coach just redigned.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Social Justice is not the problem. No one has ever said anything against social justice. No, it is not used as an insult.

I have read "social justice warrior" used as an insult. Sorry for the confusion.

social justice warrior
A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.

Urban Dictionary

That doesn't describe me or Krazy (I'm pretty sure) but I'm not sure that's how it's being used here on ATS. I DO care about the people, I believe in what I say and my research and comments are not shallow. I still think a lot of people think of me as a SJW, though.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Would you argue the ends justify the means for social justice? For instance in the case of Nobel Laureate Sir Timothy Hunt?

What we're seeing is THE PEOPLE rising up and saying, "We don't like sexism"! They are saying they won't stand for racism, homophobia, etc. With social media, the PEOPLE now have a voice! They are using that voice to have their opinion heard. They're not FORCING anything. They are being heard. They don't have an unjust advantage over anyone else's voice. This is freedom. When everyone has access to free speech, those taking advantage of it will be heard. That's a good thing.

Tim Hunt is a 72-year-old sexist, who thought women shouldn't be allowed in the lab with men, but should have their own lab. Because they cry. And made a public joke about it... WTF? Source

Do the ends justify the means? I'd say no, because I don't think anyone should lose their job over telling a joke or having sexist attitudes. But the SJWs didn't fire him. They spoke.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Metallicus

You can call it what you want, but at the end of the day it is 100% legal and you have to deal with it anyways.

Absolutely, I 100% support your right to post the stupid things you do...I just don't agree with them.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Did he actually think that, or did he just make a joke and then people decided that's really what he believed?

There is a reason why so many comedians refuse to go to college campuses anymore and that's why. They never know when someone is going to hear a joke and decide that's really what they personally believe, and that's when they are doing their JOB of being a comedian.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

Nope those are SJW rules again.

Equality in opportunity requires equality in starting circumstances. Those circumstances are currently very unequal in society.

That will never happen. We aren't even equal in our circumstances as babies emerging from the womb thanks to genetics. So give it up.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Did he actually think that, or did he just make a joke and then people decided that's really what he believed?

There is a reason why so many comedians refuse to go to college campuses anymore and that's why. They never know when someone is going to hear a joke and decide that's really what they personally believe, and that's when they are doing their JOB of being a comedian.

When I was in college, I saw Paul Mooney. He offended everyone. I mean EVERYONE. You could literally hear the gasps in the audience. This was 20 years ago. There is absolutely no way he would ever be allowed on a campus nowadays. Some angry students did write a newspaper article decrying his performance but that was the extent of it. Let's just say he would have told these kids to shove their "safe space" where the sun don't shine.

The chickens have come home to roost.

These colleges are the ones teaching everyone that they are hopeless victims and the white man is to blame. I think this is hilarious.

I said years ago schools needed an anti-pussy campaign instead of anti-bullying. We could have prevented this.

I can barely even wrap my mind around how utterly weak and mentally frail these people must think they are in order to be afraid to APLAUD someone like in the Yale video.If they clap their hands one of them may have a nervous breakdown, so we snap our fingers.

In the words of the great Prong, "You snap your fingers, I snap your neck".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: ketsuko


Exactly!
Social justice is a punishment for people that are perceived privileged.

Social justice is a punishment for someone saying something stupid and insensitive. It is the consequence one must accept for being insensitive in this day and age. Don't like it? Too bad. That's how things are. That is unless you want to infringe on people's Freedom of Speech.

Did you even read what you wrote???

You claim that people can rightly be punished for something they say, and in the same sentence, claim that is allowed "unless" one wants to infringe upon free speech. You contradict yourself. Punishing someone for speech means speech isn't free.



Logic 101 is down the hall on the right.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Mmmm... I see.. this is just your privileged way of looking at things, dismissing things without proper explanation or rationale. Perhaps if you weren't so earth-centric and ET-phobic you could understand how there's an extraterrestrial presence here and how there's a racial element to the whole "conspiracy".. The priesthoods of these ancient mystery religions were meticulous and still are meticulous about their bloodlines. They think they're descended from gods. Regrettably you're out of the loop and too myopic to recognise it.

Summing it up; your heteronormative values are outdated and cruel and this verbal violence, this vicious attack can act as a trigger to abductees and believers. I hope you consider their emotions more fairly in the future. Your antiquated beliefs belong in a museum!

originally posted by: ketsuko
That will never happen. We aren't even equal in our circumstances as babies emerging from the womb thanks to genetics. So give it up.

So you admit that some people have no potential? If a person has no potential doesn't that mean society should take care of them because they have no ability to do it themselves?

You can't claim that everyone has a chance to make something out of themselves and it's on them if they don't, and then also claim that some people are genetically inferior because those people will never have a chance.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
You claim that people can rightly be punished for something they say, and in the same sentence, claim that is allowed "unless" one wants to infringe upon free speech. You contradict yourself. Punishing someone for speech means speech isn't free.

Free speech means that the government can't silence you. Private individuals are free to ignore you or organize boycotts of you. Which actually gets into an interesting question, corporations actually have a lot of control over what people are allowed to say. Just look up how many people have been fired from their jobs for an "offensive" comment they've made on Facebook. There's an argument that there should be a Bill of Rights governing corporate/individual interactions just as there is one for government/individual interactions. Right now this all falls under the realm of contract law, and that field is under equipped to handle this because the employer and employee don't have equal negotiating power in employee code of conducts.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ketsuko
That will never happen. We aren't even equal in our circumstances as babies emerging from the womb thanks to genetics. So give it up.

So you admit that some people have no potential? If a person has no potential doesn't that mean society should take care of them because they have no ability to do it themselves?

You can't claim that everyone has a chance to make something out of themselves and it's on them if they don't, and then also claim that some people are genetically inferior because those people will never have a chance.

Ouch!

I hope you know how profound that statement is.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

We are inundated daily with stories of social justice warriors wreaking havoc, pulling their victim cards. Yet you persist in this self delusion of yours, you know exactly what we're talking about. We're talking about cultural Marxism, cultural relativism, political correctness gone mad, "social justice warriors"(seems nobody told them that would sound sanctimonious) and "crybullies" getting people fired all over for having the audacity to be devilish enough to disagree with them.. Sometimes they don't even need an inkling of a reason, they'll just make one up. This has almost become the new normal now.. give it ten more years and this madness will have polarized and radicalized the masses to such a degree that any type of unity will be impossible to attain.

At last a voice of reason pointing out the obvious insanity on offer and where it is leading to.
I know exactly where the O.P. is coming from after just watching these inbred loon balls in Missou running around chasing phantom menaces that don't exist with white 3rd wave feminist professors pulling the strings in the background.

These idiots find offense in everything and brand themselves with savvy names like social justice warrior yet keep their gobs firmly shut when real injustice is being committed such as the bombing of the hospital in Afghanistan by the U.S. air force burning patients alive in their beds and murdering Doctors.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Did he actually think that, or did he just make a joke and then people decided that's really what he believed?

1. He is NOT a comedian. Totally different scenario.

He said he actually felt that way. From my source:

Hunt, who won a Nobel Prize in 2001 for his work on cell reproduction, also stated that labs should be segregated by sex, according to journalists in attendance of the conference. After the immediate backlash, the scientist addressed his comments on the BBC Radio 4′s Today program and apologized for any offense they caused. “I’m really sorry that I said what I said. It was a very stupid thing to do in the presence of all those journalists,” Hunt said on the program.

The Nobel Laureate, however, stood by much of what he said at the conference. He continued: “It is terribly important that you can criticize people’s ideas without criticizing them. If they burst into tears it means that you tend to hold back from getting at the absolute truth. Science is about nothing except getting at the truth and anything that gets in the way of that, in my experience, diminishes the science.”

Source